tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post6918061666515029546..comments2018-05-21T01:16:38.050-07:00Comments on Erebus &amp; Terror Files: Archimedes and Croydon: The Engines of Erebus and Terror?Peter Carneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11720739633773324546noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post-27504598090919490102011-02-23T06:26:59.650-08:002011-02-23T06:26:59.650-08:00Thanks again, Peter, my own limited research the l...Thanks again, Peter, my own limited research the last couple of days is probably old hat to everyone else, but for what it&#39;s worth I thought I&#39;d share it to compliment your very nice reply: It seems both engineers came from the navy engineering department and were listed as Woolwich in the muster book - according to Cookman&#39;s appendix IV (pp. 228-30). Interestingly John Gregory&#39;s grandson was the famous late Victorian painter - Edward John Gregory (1850-1909) named after his father and grandfather. John Gregory&#39;s son, Edward, was also a steam engineer and studied at Woolwich and then managed the engineering for the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Co. I wonder if any reminisces, even a sketch or silhouette portrait survives, of/ or about John Gregory, Chief engineer for Sir John&#39;s expedition. Does anything exist in any archive of his grandson the painter? Were his papers collected and/or deposited anywheres? He died without issue (Edward John) - surely he must have been intrigued by his grandfather&#39;s fate? There needs to be a good one volume Franklin Dictionary or Cyclopedia doesn&#39;t there were a dilatante like myself can just look up such detail. Thanks for getting back to me and helping to fill in the gaps.E. W. Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00735754294095882223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post-84292790831261314352011-02-22T13:16:28.232-08:002011-02-22T13:16:28.232-08:00Good question. It seems that every member who expr...Good question. It seems that every member who expressed an opinion was extremely optimistic of success except for Captain Crozier. Crozier was pessimistic, rightfully as it turned out, but he was a very professional Captain and I think he was enjoying a good old grumble to his old friend and colleage Captain Ross. My understanding is that the engineers came from within the Navy - I&#39;d assume they had experience of paddle steamers.Peter Carneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11720739633773324546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post-78787005847429401522011-02-20T10:59:58.348-08:002011-02-20T10:59:58.348-08:00Forgive me for posting another question, but, was ...Forgive me for posting another question, but, was Capt. Crozier in ernest when he wrote about the ship&#39;s engineer or in jest; does the biography of the engineer having any relationship to the locomotive? Where did the engineers come from? Where they navy personale or railway personale?<br />Thanks again!E. W. Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00735754294095882223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post-78281690530130313782010-12-17T08:35:59.543-08:002010-12-17T08:35:59.543-08:00Harry Jack said:
I am very glad to see this piece...Harry Jack said:<br /><br />I am very glad to see this piece of careful work. <br /><br />The suggestion that the engine in &#39;Terror&#39; came from the London &amp; Birmingham Railway was based solely on the remark in Lt Irving&#39;s letter, which I believe was first noticed by the late Edward Craven. Craven was a classics master at Westminster School who did an immense amount of research into pre-1860 locomotive history all over Britain, and discovering this out-of-the way reference seems typical of him. He then realised that L&amp;B No 27, a Bury 2-2-0, seemed to disappear from the L&amp;BR records from about the time of the Franklin Expedition, so he suggested this engine as a &quot;probable&quot; for HMS &#39;Terror&#39;.<br /><br />Years later I went through the L&amp;BR records and those of its successor, the L&amp;NWR, and from the (admittedly incomplete &amp; confusing) monthly totals it appeared that no engine had been removed from stock at that time, and I put 27&#39;s disappearance, and some other anomalies, down to Loco Supt J E McConnell&#39;s rather carefree way with record-keeping. It could be that No 27 had gone into the workshops as a stationary engine, but had somehow not been reported to the Board.<br /><br />Around that time, however, the L&amp;BR was attempting to sell off some old (and smaller) Stephenson-type engines which had worked as ballast engines on p-way repairs. One of these seemed a far more likely suspect, and I suggested this in my book; but no corroborative evidence has been found and, as Peter points out, the timing makes it unlikely.<br /><br />So now, after Peter&#39;s thorough research, I am very happy to see the back of the possible L&amp;BR connection. <br /><br />Although I have a small, lingering regret: I had hoped that some future diving expedition might have brought a London &amp; Birmingham Railway locomotive back into view!<br /><br />17 December 2010.Jakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01475963216723185712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post-9825539654860220902010-08-03T12:41:33.491-07:002010-08-03T12:41:33.491-07:00Hi Russell, many thanks for your encouraging comme...Hi Russell, many thanks for your encouraging comments. I have been in touch with Mr Bailey, his advice and encouragement have been immensely helpful to my work on this. He hasn&#39;t had the time to examine it in detail but his initial comments echo yours - that the question is interesting but not yet settled.<br /><br />I am familiar with RHG Thomas&#39;s work on the L&amp;GR. He provides two fairly thin pieces of evidence:<br /><br />1. No. 4 &quot;Twells&quot; does not appear in the records of the SER (the Dover company) after they took over the L&amp;GR although the other engines do.<br />2. The price paid by the SER for engines, coaches, and equipment was £800 less than the valuation on 21 Jan 1845 - possibly because there was one engine fewer.<br /><br />One source (and I need to check) says that Greenwich line was leased and the rolling stock sold to the SER on 11 February 45. Maudslay&#39;s were given permission to use second hand engines more that two weeks after that on 1 March 1845. So they would have to have jumped the gun a bit.<br /><br />Thomas says that the Greenwich only had seven engines at this time. The Joint Committee had 89 including 18 spare engines in working order. <br /><br />The &quot;BackTrack&quot; information originates from Mr Harry Jack, president of the London and North Western Railway Society, whose help I am also grateful for. Mr Jack&#39;s examination of the London &amp; Birmingham archives show that all mainline engines are accounted for. He suggests the 0-4-0 ballast engines in his book &quot;Locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division&quot; and although his logic is sound the dates of disposal of these engines are in fact outside of the narrow timeframe necessary.<br /><br />It seems to me that the naval historians have long believed that the question was long settled because of the railway evidence, and the railway historians because of the naval evidence, and that almost out of politeness neither side has thought to look too deeply into the claims of the other. I have some further circumstantial evidence which I intend to put in a &quot;Part 2&quot;. Until then I&#39;d be grateful for any detailed criticism of the information I&#39;ve presented.Peter Carneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11720739633773324546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post-48954879027467487402010-08-03T06:34:01.511-07:002010-08-03T06:34:01.511-07:00Well it seems pretty persuasive to me...Well it seems pretty persuasive to me...William Battersbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00452863778733148002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7460851571985771047.post-84228667547883072252010-08-01T11:04:11.973-07:002010-08-01T11:04:11.973-07:00Hello Peter, and congrats on this fascinating blog...Hello Peter, and congrats on this fascinating blog&#39;s first post, well-illustrated and well-documented.<br /><br />I wonder, have you been in touch with Michael R. Bailey (the source for the statements on my blog that &quot;Terror&quot; had a Samson engine and Erebus a Planet)? His description certainly sounds authoritative, and he must surely have known of some documentary evidence to support it.<br /><br />I also, some 13 years ago, corresponded with one Matthew Searle, a librarian at the Radcliffe Science Library at Oxford. He offered a slightly different view -- different from Bailey&#39;s and from yours:<br /><br />&quot;The locomotive installed in &quot;Erebus&quot; was London &amp; Greenwich Railway No. 4 &quot;Twells&quot;, a 2-2-0 with 5&#39; diameter driving wheels built in 1836. An<br />illustration of a locomotive of this type appears in Thomas, R.H.G.,<br />London&#39;s first railway: the London &amp; Greenwich (1972) p.172.<br /><br />The locomotive in &quot;Terror&quot; was the London &amp; Birmingham Railway one. It has usually been assumed that this would have been a Bury type (bar frame) 2-2-0 of the 1830&#39;s, for which there are plenty of illustrative sources. However, and coincidentally, a letter in the current (August) issue of the magazine &quot;BackTrack&quot; points out that the L&amp;BR was not disposing of passenger locomotives of this type at the date of the Franklin expedition, and the probable type of locomotive was an 0-4-0 Stephenson goods engine with outside wooden or sandwich (i.e. iron/wood/iron) frames, presumably also of the 1830&#39;s.&quot;<br /><br />I am not a railway expert, or even much of a railway buff -- but it seems from these two accounts, and yours, that the question is much less settled than had been thought. I would just say that, while it&#39;s true that there would have been advantages to fitting the Erebus and Terror with identical engines, the relatively rapid chain of events from the initial decision to launch the Franklin expedition, to the decision to outfit the ships with steam, to the deadline needed for the vessels to be ready in time for a May 1845 departure might well have meant that two identical engines simply weren&#39;t available to be installed in time.Russell Potterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11023313195827310776noreply@blogger.com